DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amendment to independent claims 1, 13 and 15 does not overcome the rejection. The amendment merely further defines the scanning apparatus (e.g. the scanning apparatus comprises a plurality of the laser scanners ; and the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus have beams that cover a path in front of a load; wherein: the scanning apparatus is arranged to scan in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone); but do not integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The automatic driving assist system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the measuring and defining steps. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 13 and 15 have been considered but are moot. Amendment to independent claims 1, 13 and 15 changes the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 3: the anti-collision system according to claim 1
Claim 14, Line 2, the method according to claim 13
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended independent claims 1, 13 and 15 limitation it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam is not explicitly disclosed in applicant’s specification as filed (Page 10, lines 12-23)..
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14 are rejected based on dependence on independent claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 is directed to a crane anti-collision method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A crane anti-collision method comprising the steps of:
measuring the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel by a scanning apparatus installed in the crane and comprising a plurality of laser scanners;
detecting targets automatically by the detection apparatus using the scanning apparatus
wherein: the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area;
detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone;
using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone; and
covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus;
scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and
it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane (100), the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of “by a scanning apparatus ”. That is, other than reciting “by a scanning apparatus” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, “measuring…” and “defining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing the crane environment and forming simple judgements. Additionally, the “measuring…” and “defining…”steps describe a mathematical relationship and falls in the mathematical concepts grouping; and are also not too complex to be performed with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as
follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
Claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A crane anti-collision method comprising the steps of:
measuring the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel by a scanning apparatus installed in the crane and comprising a plurality of laser scanners;
detecting targets automatically by the detection apparatus using the scanning apparatus
wherein: the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area;
detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone;
using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone; and
covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus;
scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and
it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane (100), the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting”, “using” and “scanning” steps, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the detecting, using and scanning steps from external sources (i.e. laser scanner, scanning apparatus) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering target data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the “interpreted” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing target data from the measuring and defining steps) and is considered insignificant post-solution activity. Lastly, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The automatic driving assist system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the measuring and defining steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular vehicle navigation or control problem, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 13 does not include
additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the measuring and defining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detecting”, “using” , “scanning” and “interpreted”; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detecting”, “using” , “scanning” and “interpreted” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Same analysis applied to independent claim 13 and 15.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 18. Therefore, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Additionally, dependent claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter computer program code is directed to software per se and is not within one of the four statutory categories. The program code is described as a software routine that can be loaded onto any general purpose computer; thus the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klement et al. (US 20210147192 A1; hereafter Klement) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereafter Kosaka) in further view of Lussen et al. (US 20050281644 A1; hereafter Lussen).
Regarding claim 1, Klement teaches a crane anti-collision system ([0063] sensor system for collision
avoidance and precise positioning) comprising: a scanning apparatus installed in a crane ([0060] 3D scanners; [0041] crane), comprising a plurality of laser scanners (Fig 1A, [0050] four sensor units 9
…can each include e.g. a 3D scanner, in particular a laser scanner) arranged to measure the an optical distance to targets ([0053] pivoting of the laser beams emitted for object measurement in the surrounding area) from the crane in the first direction of travel ([0057] Measuring, including distance measuring, is effected at least by the two sensor units… located at the front as seen in the travel direction F, of the sensor system); a detection apparatus arranged to automatically detect targets by the scanning apparatus ([0060] The sensor units…and in particular their 3D scanners and/or cameras can then be used to measure and recognise the objects located in the fields of view); wherein: the scanning apparatus comprises a plurality of the laser scanners (Fig 1A, [0050] four sensor units 9 …can each
include e.g. a 3D scanner, in particular a laser scanner).
Klement does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is arranged for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone. However, Kosaka teaches these limitations.
Kosaka teaches the detection apparatus is arranged for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area (laser scanner…a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height ) that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area ([0147 data processing section…estimates reference height…of ground surface…in…load region…on the basis of reference height ..of ground surface); and detecting a target (see at least, [0019] the laser scanner of the data acquisition section, and that creates a guide frame enclosing the top surface of the measurement target object) in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone (see at least, [0150] reference height…of ground surface…the difference of which is smaller than the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klement to include defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Klement further does not explicitly teach the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus have beams that cover a path in front of a load; wherein: the scanning apparatus is arranged to scan in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone. However, Lussen teaches these limitations.
Lussen teaches the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus have beams that cover a path in front of a load (Fig 6; [0047] the laser scanners 18 emit conical laser beams); wherein: the scanning apparatus is arranged to scan in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction (Fig 6; [0013] the cameras or laser scanners are not aligned vertically from above downwards but are skewed in relation to the vertical); and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements (see at least, [0055] when the detectors 18 are laser scanner…When knowing the lifting height, the plane and thus the height area is known within which relevant measuring values must occur. Measuring values…outside this range are ignored) located within the reference zone ([0017] The laser scanners are positioned relatively high, as the trolley travels at a height of greater than 20 m, so that a large enough scanning area of the load-carrying frame is realized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone as taught by Lussen so that any positional inaccuracy can be quickly identified and corrected in a fully automated manner (Lussen, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches wherein the laser scanner is a 3D laser scanner (0050] the sensor units…can each include e.g. a 3D scanner, in particular a laser scanner).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus is arranged to scan in the downward diagonal direction ([0056] the two left sensor units 9 illustrated in FIG. 2b, each with a different viewing angle); and the detection apparatus is arranged to initiate a hazard avoidance procedure ([0057] sensor system for protection against collisions…In the case of a recognised obstacle …this can be automatically circumnavigated or the gantry lift device…can be stopped in order to avoid a collision with the obstacle).
Kosaka further teaches if the scanning apparatus does not receive distance measurement information from inside the reference zone from any part of the area measured by the scanning apparatus (see at least, [0261] data processing section…excluded region…is set…configured to exclude point data p acquired in excluded region JA from targets of data processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include if the scanning apparatus does not receive distance measurement information from inside the reference zone from any part of the area measured by the scanning apparatus as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according claim 1. Kosaka further teaches wherein the detection apparatus is arranged to identify deviations downwards from the reference zone of the goods handling area (see at least, [0262] a target of creation of guide information…the measurement target object…excluded region…is desirably set at a position at which a lower end height of excluded region…is separate from the top surface of suspended load W by a predetermined distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include the detection apparatus is arranged to identify deviations downwards from the reference zone of the goods handling area as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus comprises one or more laser scanners installed in the front end ([0057] at least by the two sensor units… located at the front as seen in the travel direction) according to each primary direction of the crane ([0053] In the case of laser scanners, the rotation or pivoting of the laser beams emitted for object measurement in the surrounding area …can be performed in particular about horizontal and/or vertical axes).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus is installed so high and at a slightly downwards directed angle ([0056] the two left sensor units 9 illustrated in FIG. 2b, each with a different viewing angle) that the scanning apparatus is able to detect targets in the path of the crane in time to avoid collisions ([0052] The sensor units…of the sensor system are each arranged…so high above the ground surface…that it is possible to obtain an overview of a container stack with a maximum height which the gantry lift device…can travel over without colliding with the containers).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Kosaka further teaches wherein the scanning apparatus is installed so low that the scanning apparatus is able to detect a target in the path of the crane regardless of the position of the target, when the target is a reference unit or a crash test dummy (see at least, [0259] Data processing section…determines that there is a risk of contact, in a case where a horizontal distance between suspended load W and grounded object C projected on a horizontal plane is at or smaller than predetermined threshold (such as one meter), and a distance in the vertical direction is at or smaller than a predetermined threshold …such as one meter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include the scanning apparatus is installed so low that the scanning apparatus is able to detect a target in the path of the crane regardless of the position of the target, when the target is a reference unit or a crash test dummy as taught by Kosaka in order to reliably avoid collision (Kosaka, [0237]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches the beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus cover the path in the front of the crane ([0057] at least by the two sensor units… located at the front as seen in the travel direction) with at least such a lateral opening angle that the scanning apparatus covers the path of the crane for the width required by the crane also while the crane is turning ([0057] protection against collisions…the aisles in the container store…being too narrow, other obstacles…located in the travel area …can also be measured and recognized).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Klement and Kosaka teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches wherein the detection apparatus comprises a classifier ([0064] an automatic calibration device), which is arranged to discriminate targets detected in the goods handling area into different types based on the size of the target and/or the movement of the target ([0064] the sensor system moreover comprises an automatic calibration device…can be automatically calibrated to reference objects with known shapes, patterns or contours and dimensions).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches an anti-collision system according to claim 1. Klement further teaches crane control system comprising: an automatic control for controlling the crane ([0042] The vehicle controller…can be used to automatically control all the manoeuvres of the gantry lift device…in automated operation); and an anti-collision system according to claim 1 ([0063] (sensor system for collision avoidance and precise positioning).
Regarding claim 13, Klement teaches a crane anti-collision method ([0063] sensor system for collision avoidance and precise positioning) comprising the steps of: measuring the optical distance to targets ([0053] pivoting of the laser beams emitted for object measurement in the surrounding area) from the crane in the first direction of travel by a scanning apparatus installed in the crane ( [0041] crane; [0057] Measuring, including distance measuring, is effected at least by the two sensor units… located at the front as seen in the travel direction F, of the sensor system) and comprising a plurality of scanners (Fig 1A, [0050] four sensor units 9 …can each include e.g. a 3D scanner, in particular a
laser scanner); detecting targets automatically by the detection apparatus using the scanning apparatus ([0060] The sensor units…and in particular their 3D scanners and/or cameras can then be used to measure and recognise the objects located in the fields of view); using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone ([0018] the field of view of each sensor unit can be directed in a targeted manner into regions which, in the case of a fixed field of view).
Klement does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone. However, Kosaka teaches this limitation.
Kosaka teaches the detection apparatus is used for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area (laser scanner…a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height ) that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area ([0147 data processing section…estimates reference height…of ground surface…in…load region…on the basis of reference height ..of ground surface); and detecting a target (see at least, [0019] the laser scanner of the data acquisition section, and that creates a guide frame enclosing the top surface of the measurement target object) in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone (see at least, [0150] reference height…of ground surface…the difference of which is smaller than the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Klement further does not explicitly teach covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus; scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane (100), the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone. However, Lussen teaches these limitations.
Lussen teaches covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus (Fig 6; [0047] the laser scanners 18 emit conical laser beams); scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction (Fig 6; [0013] the cameras or laser scanners are not aligned vertically from above downwards but are skewed in relation to the vertical); and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane (100), the scanning apparatus does not form measurements (see at least, [0055] when the detectors 18 are laser scanner…When knowing the lifting height, the plane and thus the height area is known within which relevant measuring values must occur. Measuring values…outside this range are ignored) located within the reference zone ([0017] The laser scanners are positioned relatively high, as the trolley travels at a height of greater than 20 m, so that a large enough scanning area of the load-carrying frame is realized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone as taught by Lussen so that any positional inaccuracy can be quickly identified and corrected in a fully automated manner (Lussen, [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the a method according to claim 13. Kosaka further teaches a crane anti-collision program comprising a computer program code arranged to perform , when executed on a computer ([0110] data processing section…is a general-purpose personal computer where predetermined data processing programs are installed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include a crane anti-collision program comprising a computer program code arranged to perform , when executed on a computer as taught by Kosaka in order to in order to reliably avoid collision (Kosaka, [0237]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klement et al. (US 20210147192 A1; hereafter Klement) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereafter Kosaka) in further view of Lussen et al. (US 20050281644 A1; hereafter Lussen), Kroyzer et al. (US 20130087139 A1; hereafter Kroyzer) and Landra et al. (US 20190193998 A1; hereafter Landra).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the vertical tolerance is defined such that, of the measurements of the laser scanner from the surface of the goods handling area, at least N% remain within the limits of tolerance; and N is 95. However, Kroyzer teaches this limitation ([0084] a proximity detector…laser scanner…may include one or more cranes; [0134] A location at or near a top of a solar tower may be at the top within a tolerance that is…upon the target is at most 95%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen to include the vertical tolerance is defined such that, of the measurements of the laser scanner from the surface of the goods handling area, at least N% remain within the limits of tolerance; and N is 95 as taught by Kroyzer in order to maximize solar energy production and/or revenue generation using an optimization algorithm (Kroyzer, [0007]).
The combination does not further explicitly teach when the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane . However, Landra teaches this limitation ([0040] when the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen to include the maximum allowed mass dimensioned for the crane is moved by the crane at the maximum possible acceleration or deceleration of the crane as taught by Lidar in order to have a time-optimized cargo transshipment, in particular in an automatic operation of the crane installation (Landra, [0011).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klement et al. (US 20210147192 A1; hereafter Klement) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereafter Kosaka) in further view of Lussen et al. (US 20050281644 A1; hereafter Lussen) and Metzler et al. (US 20150022640 A1; hereafter Metzler).
Regarding 10, the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen teaches the anti-collision system according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is arranged to define the reference surface by (Random Sample Consensus) method. However, Metzler teaches this limitation ([0039] The ground surface is automatically derived from the point cloud by a defined evaluation algorithm that analysis the shape of the spatial representation…the ground surface can be determined using 3D Hough transform or a RANSAC algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Klement, Kosaka and Lussen to include the detection apparatus is arranged to define the reference surface by (Random Sample Consensus) method as taught by Metzler in order to optimize the location and orientation of all camera positions and all 3D points (Metzler, [0025]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura et al. (US 20210072399
A1; hereafter Ichimura) in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20200167940 A1; hereafter Kosaka) in further view of Lussen et al. (US 20050281644 A1; hereafter Lussen).
Regarding claim 15, Ishimura teaches a manufacturing method of a crane anti-collision system ([0065] The obstacle sensing system…can appropriately determine safety of the moving body…avoid
collision of the moving body), comprising the steps of installing in a crane a scanning apparatus ([0029] the obstacle sensing system…is installed is not limited to the gantry crane…can be installed in…a quay crane) arranged to measure the optical distance to targets from the crane in the first direction of travel ([0003 laser scanner that performs scanning by steering a laser light beam to front of the vehicle in a horizontal direction; [0032] The obstacle sensing system…emits laser light beams from each transmission part…toward the travel surface ); providing the crane with a detection apparatus arranged to automatically ([0099] automatic driving of the moving body) to detect targets by the scanning apparatus ([0088] the obstacle sensing system…can sense an obstacle in directions other than the direction parallel to the moving direction y with the sensing range increased in the transverse direction x).
Ichimura does not explicitly teach the detection apparatus is arranged for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area, composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone. However, Kosaka teaches these limitations.
Kosaka teaches the detection apparatus is arranged for: defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area (laser scanner…a device that is capable of measuring a three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from a maximum reachable height ) that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area ([0147 data processing section…estimates reference height…of ground surface…in…load region…on the basis of reference height ..of ground surface); and detecting a target (see at least, [0019] the laser scanner of the data acquisition section, and that creates a guide frame enclosing the top surface of the measurement target object) in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone (see at least, [0150] reference height…of ground surface…the difference of which is smaller than the predetermined
threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ichimura to include defining by the scanning apparatus a three-dimensional reference zone of the goods handling area that is composed of the surface and vertical tolerance of the goods handling area; and detecting a target in the goods handling area on the basis that the height defined by the scanning apparatus differs from that of said reference zone as taught by Kosaka in order to create guide information on the basis of reference height (Kosaka, [0154]).
Ichimura does not explicitly teach a plurality of laser scanners; using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone; and covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus; scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction; and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, andfrom there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane (100), the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone. However, Lussen teaches these limitations.
Lussen teaches a plurality of laser scanners (Fig 2, a detection device having a plurality of detectors 18 in the form of…laser scanners); using a plurality of the laser scanners for the defining of the reference zone (Fig 5, [0046] scanning zones during scanning operation by the detectors 18…Outer circles KA relate to the outer laser scanners 18 whereas the inner circles KI relate to the inner laser scanners 18) and the transport vehicle 15. Outer circles KA relate to the outer laser scanners 18 whereas the inner circles KI relate to the inner laser scanners 18); and covering a path in front of a load by beams of the laser scanners of the scanning apparatus (Fig 6; [0047] the laser scanners 18 emit conical laser beams); scanning by the scanning apparatus in a downward diagonal direction such that the majority or all of the measurements are directed in the downward diagonal direction (Fig 6; [0013] the cameras or laser scanners are not aligned vertically from above downwards but are skewed in relation to the vertical); and it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if a) the scanning apparatus fails to obtain constantly changing information so that as the crane moves forward, on the basis of changes in the surface of the goods handling area there are created corresponding changes first to the front edge of the beam, and from there onwards to other portions of the beam; and optionally b) in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane (100), the scanning apparatus does not form measurements (see at least, [0055] when the detectors 18 are laser scanner…When knowing the lifting height, the plane and thus the height area is known within which relevant measuring values must occur. Measuring values…outside this range are ignored) located within the reference zone ([0017] The laser scanners are positioned relatively high, as the trolley travels at a height of greater than 20 m, so that a large enough scanning area of the load-carrying frame is realized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Klement to include it is interpreted as a fault situation or collision hazard if in the path of the crane or a defined safety margin closer to the path of the crane, the scanning apparatus does not form measurements located within the reference zone as taught by Lussen so that any positional inaccuracy can be quickly identified and corrected in a fully automated manner (Lussen, [0008]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights